Talk:Trout Creek Hill
Appearance
![]() | Trout Creek Hill has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 10, 2018. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Trout Creek Hill be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Washington (state) may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | A fact from Trout Creek Hill appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 May 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | A fact from Trout Creek Hill appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 June 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Trout Creek Hill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 09:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- Who is the publisher of "Day Hiking Columbia River Gorge: National Scenic Area/Silver Star Scenic Area/Portland–Vancouver to The Dalles"?
- C. It contains no original research:
- I am not sure that source #2 supports the content and source #7 does not speak of a dacitic Garibaldi Volcanic Belt at least not there.
- Fixed. Source 2 also has information on the subpage "Subfeatures".
- I am not sure that source #2 supports the content and source #7 does not speak of a dacitic Garibaldi Volcanic Belt at least not there.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Although I'd recommend that the lists of plants and animals use their own sorting method.
- Not sure what you mean by this. ceranthor 15:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- The article currently uses the same sorting order as the source text. Normally I use alphabetic or inverse alphabetic when I am taking such lists from a source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- I see. I'll fix that now. ceranthor 15:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo Eumerus These should now be fixed. ceranthor 15:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- I see. I'll fix that now. ceranthor 15:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- The article currently uses the same sorting order as the source text. Normally I use alphabetic or inverse alphabetic when I am taking such lists from a source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by this. ceranthor 15:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Although I'd recommend that the lists of plants and animals use their own sorting method.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- But the source link to the geology image is broken.
- Should be fixed. ceranthor 15:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- But the source link to the geology image is broken.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks, as always, for the insightful review and comments. I fixed most of your comments, and left a few questions/replies. Thanks! ceranthor 15:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Geography and places good articles
- Wikipedia requested photographs in Washington (state)
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- GA-Class WikiProject Volcanoes articles
- Low-importance WikiProject Volcanoes articles
- All WikiProject Volcanoes pages
- GA-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- GA-Class Washington articles
- Low-importance Washington articles
- WikiProject Washington articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class geography articles
- Low-importance geography articles
- WikiProject Geography articles